ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 23rd April 2018, 07:40 AM   #2481
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,718
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Your dependence on bluster reveals the failure of your belief.
And there's that irony meter again.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Through accepted scientific methodology Dr. Hulsey and his associates have established that the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred.
Starting by claiming you've proved the conclusion you've been paid to reach, spending three years trying to back it up, and then saying that you haven't actually got a clue what the answer is because it all turned out to be a bit hard, isn't exactly "accepted scientific methodology," you know. Hulsey has gone in three years from absolute certainty to admitting that he doesn't actually know how the collapses occurred; the rather obvious conclusion to read into this is that he's realised he can't prove what he's been asked to because it isn't actually true.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 10:04 AM   #2482
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Through accepted scientific methodology Dr. Hulsey and his associates have established that the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred.
Can you summarize the particular methodology Hulsey employed?
What, exactly, makes it "scientific"?
And how did you figure out that particular methodology is "accepted"?

Alternatively, admit that you merely strung together words that express your faith and impress yourself.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2018, 02:56 PM   #2483
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Beachnut nailed the problem which is fatal to Hulsey's claim "fire could not cause collapse":

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Hulsey's claim failed, you can't prove fire can't do it.
Hulsey is falling for the trap of "cannot prove a negative" which has only one exception in this setting...IF Hulsey can falsify EVERY alternative.

Hulsey has not and cannot falsify ALL alternatives - it is near certainly not possible to identify them all.

So whether his forensic engineering is correct or not for the handful of alternates he examines he still cannot support his claim of "fire could not cause collapse". It is an implicit "global" claim viz "there is no fire scenario which would cause collapse". All he can claim is "I cannot find a scenario that results in collapse" << which falls far short of proving there is no such scenario.

What is astonishing is that a senior academic would even make such a claim. But it is a "forests v trees" issue, Hulsey is an engineer and engineers are prone to losing the plot by focusing on details.

(Yes - I'm an engineer - so please don't ask )

Last edited by ozeco41; 23rd April 2018 at 03:03 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2018, 05:55 AM   #2484
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Your dependence on bluster reveals the failure of your belief.
Such irony!

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Through accepted scientific methodology Dr. Hulsey and his associates have established that the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred.
And what documentation or analysis have you read that shows Hulsey and his associates used this "accepted methodology" to show that they "established" that fires could never have created the collapsed that occured?

The last update I saw from Hulsey stated:
Quote:
We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.
So which findings of Hulsey and his associates are you looking at when he clearly has not released anything definitive?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2018, 03:11 AM   #2485
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,835
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Your dependence on bluster reveals the failure of your belief.

Through accepted scientific methodology Dr. Hulsey and his associates have established that the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred.
Dr. Hulsey's work is so flawed it is Laughable, he forgot critical air stream data.
His work is there fore religated to the dust bin of Pesudo Science.
Just like Steven E. Jones and Neils Harriet.
He can't achieve max temp's or thermal load in his models because he forgot to correctly model airflow in the damaged buildings.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2018, 10:20 AM   #2486
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
My prediction:

Dr Hulsey will never produce a paper associated with the UAF. The study will die as far as the university is concerned and Dr Hulsey will continue to make statements based on his opinion (and belief).

That's it in a nut shell. Time will tell if I'm right..............
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 28th April 2018 at 10:21 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2018, 12:56 PM   #2487
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,016
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
My prediction:

Dr Hulsey will never produce a paper associated with the UAF. The study will die as far as the university is concerned and Dr Hulsey will continue to make statements based on his opinion (and belief).

That's it in a nut shell. Time will tell if I'm right..............
Are any vanity Journals available?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2018, 01:14 PM   #2488
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,322
There's always this, I guess...
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 02:19 AM   #2489
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,837
When, if ever will these guys stop digging the hole their in deeper... and move on?

His other options are:

to admit he was incorrect and he can't prove his claims.

or


He apparently bought the truther line and jumped in before he thought or considered the consequences. Not a good outcome for the university.
soldier on with junk science
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2018, 10:28 PM   #2490
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,855
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
When, if ever will these guys stop digging the hole their in deeper... and move on?

His other options are:

to admit he was incorrect and he can't prove his claims.

or

He apparently bought the truther line and jumped in before he thought or considered the consequences. Not a good outcome for the university.
soldier on with junk science
Hulsey is not the only university faculty member to promote 9/11 Truth. I have recently discovered that some of the Truthers posting here earlier are university faculty. Hulsey might be the only faculty in a construction-related field doing this kind of work. But admitting error and moving on has never been an important characteristic of university research. He could be telling himself all kinds of things. He could believe that he ran out of money before he could find anything meaningful. He could believe that he started the project the wrong way to make his point and can't start over again. He might have found that he was wrong but can't admit this to himself. There are all kinds of excuses he could be making to himself.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2018, 07:06 AM   #2491
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,837
I recall Graeme MacQueen who is or was a professor at a university noting his academic credentials... He was on the consensus panel and wrote about the anthrax attacks and I believe supported the CD inside job thesis of 911 Truth. And same for Paul Zarembka... who wrote about insider trading related to 9/11. Or what about Neils Harit? He freely offered physics analysis to support CD.

These are intelligent people who venture into technical matters way about their pay grade and as such are speaking as layman and their credentials mean nothing.

Or David Griffin, a theologian writing about the collapse of 7wtc?

And this underscores the nature of the "technical debate" about 911... full of people who do not have the requisite expertise in the fields they freely opine about... but simply parrot the opinions of others who they believe ARE experts and ARE qualified.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 2nd May 2018 at 08:06 AM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2018, 08:57 AM   #2492
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Through accepted scientific methodology Dr. Hulsey and his associates have established that the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred.
No one need prove that "the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred." , since no one has ever claimed that. The fires AFTER the mechanical destruction wrought by the aircraft impacts, led to the initial collapses.
After that occured, the fires no longer were relevent.
In many other fires, for instance the Delft University collapse, fire did cause a large collapse. The single biggest difference between those fires and the WTC tower fires, is that all other fires start small. The aforementioned Delft fire began with a coffee vending machine catching fire.
The WTC fires started with an aircraft impact which dumped thousands of gallons of accelerant over several vertically adjacent floors and creating immediate multilevel large area fires.(note that the jet fuel contributed only a small amount of extra fuel , instead it caused the immediate ignition of a lot of native fuel in the offices) "So what's the difference?" one might ask. Picture this: you arrange 6 large bonfire mounds on the circumference of a 60 foot diamter circle. Light one on fire, when half of that one is consumed, light another one, when half of that one is consumed light another one,,,,etc.
Second test, same set up but light all 6 at the same time.
Test how hot it gets and for how long, at the center of that circle. No surprise that in the second test it is a lot hotter, in the first test temperatures stay elevated for longer. Heat flow rate depends on temperature delta so a steel column at the center of this circle would see its interior temp rise faster in test 2 and peak surface temps higher in test 2 as well even though test one would see elevated surface temps stay elevated longer.
Did Husley do a multilevel simulation or consider each level in isolation.

Of course there is another issue in the case of the towers. That is knowing exactly the extent and detail of damage wrought by aircraft impacts. Husley, as everyone else, is basically guessing at that. The more damage caused the less effect the fires need in order to initiate collapse. In addition the particulars of initial core and perimeter damage greatly affect the stresses on the remaining structural members then being heated as the fires continue.
As tilting occurs columns are either in compression or tension and those forces are not axial.
Then there is the matter of insulation destruction. Again there is a wide range of error in knowing how much insulation was removed from exactly what structural members..

No, it is very very probable that fire managed to cause the initial collapse, history and engineering demonstrate this.
If the issue however is the global collapses then Husley is studying the WRONG thing as the fires had ZERO to do with propagation after the initial collapse.

What a maroon! Then again one must consider the intelkigence of those employing him as well.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th May 2018 at 09:07 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2018, 03:22 PM   #2493
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
No one need prove that "the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred." , since no one has ever claimed that.........
Actually, that's exactly what the NIST claims..............

Remember, this study only concerns building seven...........the holy grail.

Dr Hulsey's declaration that fire alone could not destroy the building is based on opinion and not backed by scientific methodology as claimed by our faith believer that you responded to.

Basically.............. Criteria is talking out of his arse..........
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 7th May 2018 at 03:25 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2018, 05:12 AM   #2494
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually, that's exactly what the NIST claims..............

Remember, this study only concerns building seven...........the holy grail.

Dr Hulsey's declaration that fire alone could not destroy the building is based on opinion and not backed by scientific methodology as claimed by our faith believer that you responded to.

Basically.............. Criteria is talking out of his arse..........
Yes, of course I was referring to WTC 1 & 2.

Oh yeah holy grail and 911 truth are Monty Python.

As far as WTC7 goes one notes the 20 storeys of missing corner column, fire fighter reports of multiple fires throughout the structure,even an elevator car ejected from the shaft and the bulge. It was determined too dangerous to continue efforts to save it.
Quite obvious the building was stressed well before collapse began. It also shares one thing in common with the twins, long span open floors. Any local column failure must result in a large section failure..

Again, fire had near zero to do with propagation to global collapse. Fire leads to local collapse, same as in Delft, local collapse propagates to further collapse.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 10th May 2018 at 05:16 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 03:22 AM   #2495
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,835
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Your dependence on bluster reveals the failure of your belief.

Through accepted scientific methodology Dr. Hulsey and his associates have established that the fires particular to WTC7 on 9/11 could never create the collapse that occurred.

Dr. Hulsey's is now the laughing stock of the Science of structural failure, he get so much wrong. Fire can compromise the system in so many ways leading to simple connection failures.

Why are all The Truth Movement Scientist so Incompetent?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 03:24 AM   #2496
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,835
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually, that's exactly what the NIST claims..............

Remember, this study only concerns building seven...........the holy grail.

Dr Hulsey's declaration that fire alone could not destroy the building is based on opinion and not backed by scientific methodology as claimed by our faith believer that you responded to.

Basically.............. Criteria is talking out of his arse..........
Can't say it is the first time.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 03:38 AM   #2497
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The project apparently was budgeted with 2 assistants, 3 years - but one of the two assistants left the project quite a while ago. Perhaps this saved them some of the money (and caused some of the delay), such that the other assistant can be payed longer?
Is it known why the assistant left?
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 05:29 AM   #2498
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 View Post
Is it known why the assistant left?
I don't know. My presumption, and the most parsimonous hypothesis, would be that he agreed to the original 2 year duration of this post graduate project, after which he simply moved on to a real job in academia ( he is at another US university now)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 01:51 PM   #2499
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
(he is at another US university now)
What about contacting him and ask him if he has any comments on the project, why he left and where he stands on Hulseys conclusions so far?
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."

Last edited by Josarhus; 18th May 2018 at 01:52 PM. Reason: typo
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 02:55 PM   #2500
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by Josarhus View Post
What about contacting him and ask him if he has any comments on the project, why he left and where he stands on Hulseys conclusions so far?
My vague recollection is that he made statements about the project which had a different "spin" to Hulsey's version. His were professionally acceptable whilst Hulsey's various claims to have proved that fire could NOT cause WTC7 collapse should invite ridicule in any professional setting. (The general "rule" of logic "cannot prove a negative" - and the project certainly cannot meet the one exception to that rule.)

At the time I recall some speculation that he may have decided that distance from the project was professionally prudent. Others may remember - the issue seems to be lost in the fog of forum history.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2018, 04:48 PM   #2501
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 452
New Update

Quote:
When the much-anticipated WTC 7 study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks is finally released later this year, it will trigger a tsunami of truth that will take us into the next phase of our mission.

We will transmit the study’s finding that fire did not bring down WTC 7 to millions of people. Dr. Leroy Hulsey will publish papers in respected engineering journals. Our growing team of three dozen engineers will give hundreds of presentations all over the world.

But, perhaps most important of all, we will use the study as the basis of a formal “Request for Correction” to NIST’s false WTC 7 report. When, in all likelihood, NIST fails to respond adequately, we will bring the agency to court under the Data Quality Act, seeking a judgment that requires NIST to correct its report.

By that time, our goal is to have gained so much momentum and resources that the lawsuit against NIST will be just one of the many legal actions and legislative campaigns we are able to carry out. And our lawsuits will be aimed at more than just NIST.

In order to reach that point, we must be at full strength throughout the next year. That means bringing on board 500 new sustaining members during the final week of our membership drive, which ends next Friday.
Seems they are working towards an end result, because Hulsey mentions this on their website.

Quote:
To all who have been following the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

First, I would like to thank you for your interest in and support of the study.

We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2018, 06:52 PM   #2502
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Has he explained yet how he intends to get out of the dead end trap of "cannot prove a negative"?

IF he intends to prove "fire CANNOT cause..." he MUST falsify every plausible alternative mechanism. Even if he falsifies a dozen alternate mechanisms he still hasn't shown that he has DISproved ANY of the "fire only" scenarios that actually could happen - including the one specific one that did happen.

All he has proved is that he cannot find a viable "fire only" scenario.

And - accepting the discussion of details both here and on other forums - it looks like he is wrong with the detailed engineering of the ones he is claiming

Last edited by ozeco41; 26th May 2018 at 06:54 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 05:03 AM   #2503
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Quote:
But, perhaps most important of all, we will use the study as the basis of a formal “Request for Correction” to NIST’s false WTC 7 report. When, in all likelihood, NIST fails to respond adequately, we will bring the agency to court under the Data Quality Act, seeking a judgment that requires NIST to correct its report.

By that time, our goal is to have gained so much momentum and resources that the lawsuit against NIST will be just one of the many legal actions and legislative campaigns we are able to carry out. And our lawsuits will be aimed at more than just NIST.
This is both funny and sad. Lofty goals set on a study that has not been completed let alone published.

Quote:
We will transmit the study’s finding that fire did not bring down WTC 7 to millions of people. Dr. Leroy Hulsey will publish papers in respected engineering journals. Our growing team of three dozen engineers will give hundreds of presentations all over the world.
This sounds to me like the study is not going to be reviewed or published on release. Didn't see that coming...........
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 07:06 AM   #2504
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,322
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This sounds to me like the study is not going to be reviewed or published on release. Didn't see that coming...........
Oh yes, it will be reviewed... by thruthers. Like the Bentham paper.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 07:43 AM   #2505
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Fiction:
Quote:
When the much-anticipated WTC 7 study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks is finally released later this year, it will trigger a tsunami of truth that will take us into the next phase of our mission.
Reality:
The scaled down, incomplete study based on opinion will garner the exact same response from the scientific/engineering community as all the other efforts. The "tsunami" will be a ripple from a pebble in a huge pond.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 11:11 AM   #2506
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,011
I had to search for the source of this - a May 26 newsletter:
http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694...st_KEY=1390014

You find an archive of their newsletters at http://action.ae911truth.org/blastCo...loggedOut=True
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 11:19 AM   #2507
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
All about the money............
Quote:
In order to reach that point, we must be at full strength throughout the next year. That means bringing on board 500 new sustaining members during the final week of our membership drive, which ends next Friday.
Quote:
All we ask from you is the equivalent of one large cappuccino ($5), one deli sandwich ($10), or one movie ticket ($15) per month, and we can make the progress you want to see in the pursuit of 9/11 Truth and Justice.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 27th May 2018 at 11:20 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 01:12 PM   #2508
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
All about the money............
I find these quotes much more interesting (emphasis original):
Quote:
Anonymous donor to match ALL new memberships through June 1st!
...
As with our past two membership drives, a very generous anonymous donor who believes in leveraging his wealth to encourage others to donate has offered to match the annual value of every new membership. Whatever the sum of your 12 monthly donations, he’ll match it at the end of this drive — doubling your contribution!
I wonder who that single big-time donor is. Any single entity donating in excess of $5,000 per tax year must be named in their IRS Form 990. This would be in "Schedule B" of the Form 990 ("schedule" apparently being more or less synonymous with "appendix"). I have all their 990s up to 2016, but find that Schedule B is included with the big donors only through 2013. The 2014 form 990 only has a cover page for Schedule B, but not the page(s) listing the donors! Same in 2016. In 2015, Schedule B is missing altogther. This despite their having checked the "Yes" Box in Part IV, line 2 of the Form 990 proper that says "Is the organization required to complete Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors (see instructions)?"

I wonder if they left out this information on purpose, and whether this is legal! Would anyboody more familiar than I with how to navigate US tax law be able to figure this out?

Find tax years 2010-2016 appended to this post at Metabunk: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/222265/
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 01:47 PM   #2509
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,011
This is slightly off-topic to this thread, but while I am at it, here are the large donors from 2010 through 2013:

DonorState2010201120122013SUM
Grizwald DrazMA$0$0$25.000$70.000$95.000
Alexandria PattyWA$0$0$39.700$0$39.700
Robert JamiesonOR$19.500$16.000$0$0$35.500
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgMA$10.000$10.000$15.000$0$35.000
Patricia McSweenyMA$0$0$10.000$22.000$32.000
Michael ShoenWA$0$0$0$30.300$30.300
Thomas DurstCA$0$0$0$26.173$26.173
Oleg KisPA$0$0$20.000$0$20.000
Elmer R McNeceCA$0$0$0$19.500$19.500
Promethean GenesisOR$8.000$8.000$0$0$16.000
Vanguard Charitable TrustMA$0$0$15.000$0$15.000
Israel HenthorneAZ$0$0$0$15.000$15.000
Young Again FoundationNC$0$10.000$0$0$10.000
Jeffrey BardenMA$0$0$10.000$0$10.000
No Lies FoundationCA$0$0$9.500$0$9.500
Thomas SpellmanCA$0$0$7.233$0$7.233
SUM $37.500$44.000$151.433$182.973$415.906


ETA - Notes:
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 27th May 2018 at 02:31 PM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 05:59 PM   #2510
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

I wonder if they left out this information on purpose, and whether this is legal!
I'm sure it was intentional and yes it's legal. If someone was to ask specifically for that form, they would have to provide the information...........
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 05:19 PM   #2511
Trojan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 490
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
This is slightly off-topic to this thread, but while I am at it, here are the large donors from 2010 through 2013:

DonorState2010201120122013SUM
Grizwald DrazMA$0$0$25.000$70.000$95.000
Alexandria PattyWA$0$0$39.700$0$39.700
Robert JamiesonOR$19.500$16.000$0$0$35.500
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgMA$10.000$10.000$15.000$0$35.000
Patricia McSweenyMA$0$0$10.000$22.000$32.000
Michael ShoenWA$0$0$0$30.300$30.300
Thomas DurstCA$0$0$0$26.173$26.173
Oleg KisPA$0$0$20.000$0$20.000
Elmer R McNeceCA$0$0$0$19.500$19.500
Promethean GenesisOR$8.000$8.000$0$0$16.000
Vanguard Charitable TrustMA$0$0$15.000$0$15.000
Israel HenthorneAZ$0$0$0$15.000$15.000
Young Again FoundationNC$0$10.000$0$0$10.000
Jeffrey BardenMA$0$0$10.000$0$10.000
No Lies FoundationCA$0$0$9.500$0$9.500
Thomas SpellmanCA$0$0$7.233$0$7.233
SUM $37.500$44.000$151.433$182.973$415.906


ETA - Notes:
Shocked Bobby McIlvaine isn't listed
Trojan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 11:20 PM   #2512
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,855
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
This is slightly off-topic to this thread, but while I am at it, here are the large donors from 2010 through 2013:

DonorState2010201120122013SUM
Grizwald DrazMA$0$0$25.000$70.000$95.000
Alexandria PattyWA$0$0$39.700$0$39.700
Robert JamiesonOR$19.500$16.000$0$0$35.500
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgMA$10.000$10.000$15.000$0$35.000
Patricia McSweenyMA$0$0$10.000$22.000$32.000
Michael ShoenWA$0$0$0$30.300$30.300
Thomas DurstCA$0$0$0$26.173$26.173
Oleg KisPA$0$0$20.000$0$20.000
Elmer R McNeceCA$0$0$0$19.500$19.500
Promethean GenesisOR$8.000$8.000$0$0$16.000
Vanguard Charitable TrustMA$0$0$15.000$0$15.000
Israel HenthorneAZ$0$0$0$15.000$15.000
Young Again FoundationNC$0$10.000$0$0$10.000
Jeffrey BardenMA$0$0$10.000$0$10.000
No Lies FoundationCA$0$0$9.500$0$9.500
Thomas SpellmanCA$0$0$7.233$0$7.233
SUM $37.500$44.000$151.433$182.973$415.906


ETA - Notes:
According to his Facebook, Oleg Kis studied at Villanova University. That's where Tony Szamboti studied engineering.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 29th May 2018 at 11:41 PM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 06:23 PM   #2513
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 793
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
[snip]
Are you an Architect or Architectural Engineer?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 09:03 AM   #2514
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 452
new mail from AE911 Idiots

Latest mail update from AE911truthers

Quote:
In order to be at full strength throughout the next 12 months, we must bring on board 300 new sustaining members by the end of Friday. If you believe in our mission and you’re not already a monthly, quarterly, or annual sustaining member, we’re counting on you to join with us before the end of the week. And don’t forget: We’re offering you an array of commemorative and educational items as a token of our gratitude.
Quote:
On top of the many initiatives your donations will enable us to carry out — such as Project Due Diligence, our Continuing Education program, our booklet “3,000 Architects & Engineers: In Their Own Words,” and the Bobby McIlvaine campaign — your support will help us promote the University of Alaska Fairbanks WTC 7 study when it is released later this year. With the final report in hand, we will then file a formal “Request for Correction” to the NIST WTC 7 report based on the study’s findings.

When, in all likelihood, NIST fails to respond adequately, we will bring the agency to court under the Data Quality Act, seeking a judgment that requires NIST to correct its report. By that time, our goal is to be in a position financially where the NIST lawsuit will be just one of the many legal actions and legislative campaigns we are able to carry out. And our lawsuits will be aimed at more than just NIST.

All we ask from you is the equivalent of one large cappuccino ($5), one deli sandwich ($10), or one movie ticket ($15) per month — or more if you can — and we’ll be empowered to make the progress you want to see in the pursuit of 9/11 Truth and Justice.
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 04:10 PM   #2515
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Are you an Architect or Architectural Engineer?
No - why do you ask? Not relevant to the post you quoted (and then snipped).
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 06:19 PM   #2516
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Quote:
Your support will help us promote the University of Alaska Fairbanks WTC 7 study when it is released later this year. With the final report in hand, we will then file a formal “Request for Correction” to the NIST WTC 7 report based on the study’s findings.
There is no such thing as a "University of Alaska Fairbanks" study. Fact is, I doubt there will every be one supported by the university. There is no indication to date the original study(that everyone knows does not exist) will receive endorsement.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 31st May 2018 at 06:20 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 04:43 AM   #2517
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 793
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No - why do you ask? Not relevant to the post you quoted (and then snipped).
I know it wasn't relevant to the post I snipped. I was just curious as you seem to know a lot about architecture, nothing more.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 08:37 AM   #2518
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I know it wasn't relevant to the post I snipped. I was just curious as you seem to know a lot about architecture, nothing more.
I have not written about architecture in this thread since at least 2016, if ever.

But no, I have no credentials in either architecture or any branch of engineering, except that I have some insight into land surveying, as 3 of my closest relatives are/were degreed and practicing land surveying engineers.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 08:42 AM   #2519
Jaytje46
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 452
I missed that part

Quote:
There is no such thing as a "University of Alaska Fairbanks" study.
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 09:36 AM   #2520
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 793
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I have not written about architecture in this thread since at least 2016, if ever.

But no, I have no credentials in either architecture or any branch of engineering, except that I have some insight into land surveying, as 3 of my closest relatives are/were degreed and practicing land surveying engineers.
I saw one of your posts on another forum, but thanks.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.